Please read the story.  Check the documentation.  If you have questions - contact me.  Then, please - do something.  Do not sit back silently thinking that this does not affect you, because it does. 

     Complacency by citizens like you and me is what has allowed the people who brazenly skew the law and its implementation to effect the results they desire from it - rather than true justice.  The only solution is to stand up and take back the power, before you are faced with a situation similar to ours.  As you read our story, you may shake your head and say to yourself- " That couldn't happen to me."   "I would have made a deal and settled with them."  " I would have signed over the piece of land and cut my losses." In fact the plaintiffs' attorney did give my husband an interesting offer which sounds like he could have been free of the damages we incurred:

(I'm not quite sure how what he was proposing would be legally possible, or what type of agreement he was proposing that would have absolved my husband of the responsibility for any damages without both of us buying into it. )

     If you find yourself thinking those things, please consider this question:  At what point would you decide it is time to fight - How much land and liberty would you be willing to cede before you felt it worthy of a fight?  Certainly our forefathers felt the fight worthy - and our veterans of past and present lay their lives on the line daily for our right to enjoy our liberties. 

     It is my firm belief that the least we as citizens can do is to step up and claim these rights when they are challenged.  So, if you find yourself thinking that we made our own problems because we chose to fight - you are right.  However, when you look at this or any other similar situation with clarity, those who have walked away from the fight, have played a far larger role in our difficulties than most people would care to admit.

How we came to lose .18 acre of our legally titled land along with $32,193.47 to the plaintiffs and their law firm ( This does not include our legal court costs or attorney fees, which amounted to several thousand dollars.):

     When faced with the knowledge that our neighbors had encroached on our land, by placing a portion of their septic system across the legally described and titled boundary between our properties in March of 2000, we had a choice. We could have had them remove their encroachments and sold the property to one of the purchasers to whom we had agreed to sell the adjoining land. Or - we could have surveyed out a parcel of land to sell those neighbors, and offered it to those neighbors at a fair price. We chose to do the latter. In fact, through our real estate agent, we even included those neighbors in helping determine the size of the parcel needed to fit their specific needs - not requiring that they purchase an entire 8 acre (Our original intent had been to survey and sell 2 (8) acre parcels of land.) parcel of land in order to obtain the land they needed. The parcel amounted to .18 acres, and including the survey, the entire purchase price was $1361.50. Our neighbors, after we had sold our 2 8 acre parcels (rendering the parcel they needed - landlocked) declined to purchase the small lot, which contained part of their septic system for the $1361.50. They first offered us $600 for the parcel, and finally offered $1000. We refused to sell it for less than the original amount of $1361.50, as we considered unfair to sell the land to them for less money than we could have sold it to the other purchasers, who had agreed to purchase full 8 acre parcels.

     Again, at this time, we could have pursued to have our neighbors remove the encroachments they had placed on our land, or we could have allowed them to use the land, knowing that at some point they would eventually have to purchase the parcel in order to have legal title to all of the land on which they had placed their septic system. Once again, we allowed them to use the land. Certainly, after creating a parcel of land - beyond the encroachments which were of concern, surveying, and registering the parcel, it was obvious to all we continued to own the parcel. Certainly after their attempts at negotiating the price of the parcel down, and our staunch refusal to accept anything less than the original $1361.50, we had made our position clear to our neighbors.

     5 years later, in March of 2005, when faced with the knowledge that our neighbors were selling their home and lot, we again had a choice. We could have said nothing, and allowed them to sell our .18 acre lot to an unsuspecting purchaser. Or, we could have contacted our neighbors to allow them to clear up the issue in a legal and proper manner. We chose the latter. For the same parcel we had refused to accept an offer of less than $1361.50 - 5 years earlier, our neighbors offered us $806 when reminded of the fact that we owned the parcel. At that point, we could have accepted the $806 and moved on with our lives. However, that somehow didn’t sit right with us. When you have property and you have dealt fairly with someone, it has always been our belief that you are entitled to fairness in return. These neighbors had 5 years to do what we considered to be the right thing, and with their $806 offer, they assured us that they had no such intention. Yes, we could have walked away at that point - but we did not. Instead we sent them a demand letter with a rather clear intent. It stated simply that they should remove their encroachments from our parcel, or pay us $15,000 for the parcel. Shortly after this, the neighbors in fact did cut off their septic system at the line of the .18 acre parcel and reconfigure it so that it functioned fully on their legally titled property. During this same time period, I contacted the La Crosse County to question building addition setbacks, as there was a deck and a sun room addition on the rear of the home. While my questions were of a general nature, the person I contacted asked for a specific address in order to give a definitive answer to my questioning. When I provided the address, I was informed by the county representative that there were no additions on this particular property, as there were no zoning permits on record for them. At this point county ordinance required them to send the owners of the property a non-compliance notice. After receiving this notice, our neighbors choices were also obvious.

They could have removed the deck and sun room, for which there were no permits found on record in the county. Or they could apply for after the fact zoning permits and variances for these additions, which were built past the setbacks allowed for property additions. They chose the latter.

As a taxpayer, and neighboring landowner, I appeared at the variance hearing and spoke in opposition to the granting of their after the fact variance.

It was my position at that hearing that they did not follow the permitting rules, were given an opportunity to correct the problem created by not having obtained the permits in the first place - by purchasing the property at a fair market price. Since they elected not to do this, I did not and do not believe that a variance was an appropriate remedy for them.

Additionally, at this hearing, on the record, one of the 3 members of the Board of Adjustment referred to us as “Blackmailers,” during their deliberations on whether or not to grant the variance.

    I am unsure why this person felt it was within his purview to make this statement. Considering the statement was referencing me, I was incensed. However, in this same context, had I heard the same statement about anyone by the persons in this venue, I would have been equally outraged. This comment led me to believe that the person making the comment may have had some agenda other than deciding whether or not to grant a variance based upon the local ordinance. Whatever his purpose, the comment was very inappropriate and uncalled for.

     Again, at this point we had a choice - forget it and walk away, or lawfully exercise our right to protest the granting of the variance. We chose to appeal the decision of the LaCrosse County Board of Adjustment to the circuit court - as our right under Wisconsin State, and LaCrosse County law and ordinance.

     About a month after we filed an appeal in circuit court concerning  the Board of Adjustment’s determination, we were served with a summons for a lawsuit - claiming adverse possession of a parcel of our land, trespass on that land, and damages caused by us asserting our rights to possess and maintain our land (namely - damages because the plaintiffs were having difficulty selling their land because we had placed a fence on the property to which we held legal title, and they had lost potential home purchasers due to the fact that their property septic system was not fully on land to which they held legal title. Further - there were setback and variance issues, due to the fact they did not hold legal title to the piece of property on which they were now claiming adverse possession.

      We sent an answer and counterclaim to the plaintiffs' suit.

       At point, and for the next several months, we represented ourselves in this suit.  Therefore, this we provided this answer on our own.  This is known as participating in a lawsuit pro se  (representing oneself, without a lawyer).

     We then filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel for filing
a frivolous suit - one which was without merit.   

The court ignored our motions and filings.

(Interestingly, it is one threat on which he did not follow through.)

We moved the court for a change of judge, a right granted in Wisconsin Statute.

Our request was dismissed and the courts seated a different judge based on the following:  Request for: 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Here is a case that had been initiated a few years earlier - same plaintiffs, same judge, same attorney.  Interestingly, it involved the septic system, which appeared to be the catalyst for the dispute in our case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Keep in mind that our case was a La Crosse County Circuit Court Case.  For reasons still unknown to us this case was assigned to Judge John Damon of Trempealeau County.  Unanswered questions aside, this remained a La Crosse County court case, to be guided by La Crosse County rules.
  

        Of note ~ when we filed a counter-suit for trespass, in September of 2005, the 6 year statute of limitations for trespass had not yet expired, even if we were to project that the court would {erroneously} determine that the plaintiffs had adversely possessed our land as of the year 2000, we undoubtedly were entitled to counter-sue for trespass.  If we are to accept the logic of the judge in our case, and his finding of fact that at "some time" in 2000 the plaintiffs had adversely possessed our land, then ~ the entire time they were using it in 1999, they were trespassers.  We counter sued within the statute of limitations.  However after making all other findings, the Judge stated that he would  dismiss our counterclaim for trespass as - "It was with no basis on the facts the Court has found."  Unfortunately this does not reconcile with his finding in favor of the plaintiffs obtaining our land by adverse possession.  In order for him to legally and legitimately found the plaintiffs to be the new owners of our land via adverse possession - they had to be trespassing in 1999.  Indeed, if they were not: a.) They were using the land with our permission or b.) They were not using the land.  Either way, if they weren't trespassing in '99 - it is impossible for them to have adversely possessed our land. 

Even though Wisconsin is a state which only allows the following...  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       "A trial court  sitting in equity-as it is in an action to quiet title-it may, in exercise of its discretion, fashion a remedy which includes an award of attorney fees. Estate of Pirsch , 148 Wis.2d 425, 433, 435 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Ct. App. 1988). To do so, however, the party's conduct must be "fraudulent, shocking or in bad faith." Id. , quoting In re P.A.H ., 115 Wis.2d 670, 675, 340 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Ct. App. 1983). We review the court's determination under the erroneous-exercise-of-discretion standard: whether the court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. Loy v. Bunderson , 107 Wis.2d 400, 414-15, 320 N.W.2d 175, 184 (1982)."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      ...The plaintiffs in our case sought to obtain their attorney fees as an award from the court. 

     It is certain that we were in possession of the land at the time the lawsuit was initiated, and were the legal title owners.  It would be difficult to assert that we were not entitled to defend our right to retain our property or our conduct in that defense as: "fraudulent, shocking or in bad faith."

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh - and here is an emphatic response from the plaintiffs to avoid a hearing on costs - even though there never was any objection to the costs!!!  

Judge Damon's letter informing all that there was no need for a hearing on costs.

**Interesting question would be - WHY WOULD SUCH A LETTER BE NECESSARY IF WE HAD NOT MADE AN OBJECTION TO THE COSTS? ( It was asserted by the Appellate Court Judges and the plaintiffs that we had not objected to the costs even though the law specifies that the costs must be filed and noticed with the clerk - seems like they were on the same {wrong} page.**

Click Here for some history and background on Adverse Possession

Adverse Possession,

    Adverse possession is possessing and using property for an extended period of time ~ as defined by law. In Wisconsin this period of time is 20 years. The land being possessed is not legally owned by the person occupying the property. In fact, the person possessing the property is a trespasser. Often this is referred to as squatting, or squatter’s rights. If a person occupies the property long enough, 20 years in Wisconsin, they can come to own the property, even if they legally have no claim to it. Adverse possession is a means of acquiring land or homes, without having to pay for them.

The time of occupation and/or possession prior to gaining the title of the property is illegal, in that it is trespass. If the person actually owning the property chooses, he can have people who are occupying the land, removed from the property and charged with trespassing.

Adverse possession, in order to be considered so, must fit three categories of definition. The person must physically possess the property in a visible and real manner. The person also mentally possesses the property. This is sometimes called hostile possession. This means the adverse possessor restricts the use of the property by others. They must treat the property as their own, to the exclusion of all others, and particularly the record title owner. Lastly, the person’s possession of the property must be continuous. The possessor can’t leave the property for any period of time. The elements of adverse possession are that the disputed property was used for the requisite period of time in an open, notorious, visible, exclusive, hostile and continuous manner that would apprise a reasonably diligent landowner and the public that the possessor claimed the land as his or her own.

Actual possession is defined as cultivation, improvement, enclosure (fencing), or use for fuel (firewood). Just crossing property by foot or by vehicle on a trail or along utility lines does not constitute possession.

There are three ways one can claim adverse possession. If a claim is based on a recorded written document and the claimant has paid property taxes on the property, the claimant must have maintained possession for seven years. If the claim is based on an inaccurate, erroneous, or imprecise written document but the claimant did not pay taxes, the time period for maintaining possession is 10 years. If there is no documentation supporting the adverse possessors use and ownership of the property, and the adverse possessor has not paid property taxes on the property, the time period for maintaining possession is 20 years (Sec. 893.25-893.32 Wisconsin Statutes).

893.25 Adverse possession, not founded on written instrument. (1) An action for the recovery or the possession of real estate and a defense or counterclaim based on title to real estate are barred by uninterrupted adverse possession of 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.14 and 893.29. A person who, in connection with his or her predecessors in interest, is in uninterrupted adverse possession of real estate for 20 years, except as provided by s. 893.29, may commence an action to establish title under ch. 841.